If he gets lucky he might get off easy with a 'worst president to ever hold the office' footnote.
Of course, like with Nixon, you will still have slavering beasties defending him for the next few decades and blaming everything on liberals and campus radicals.
They're already going to jail for longer terms than murderers and retail store thieves, You MAFIAA mole.
So, I guess that means that if you are being sued by the RIAA (or, one of the member corporations for the overly-pedantic fuckwits out there), it would be better to hack them all to pieces with an axe, smash all their computers into tiny bits, and then set fire to their office building. With any luck, you would not only get a lesser sentence, but you might be able to plead insanity. (BTW, while IAARM, IANAL).
Being someone who has panic attacks and periods of agoraphobia, I do not like this at all.
Well, that and a fear of non-anonymous posting:-) I know what you mean, though. Even if you are not the type to have panic attacks, people go through really bad spells sometimes and would appear 'suspicious' to the stupid fucktards who run these things.
This is not a good direction, but hey, they practically have a monopoly on cheap online books so what am I gonna do.
Well, there is powells.com (which is the website for a bookstore in Portland, OR) and abebooks.com, which is a conglomeration of independent bookstores. And that's just off the top of my head. Seriously, there are quite a number of other choices. You just have to look.
How else do you think there were so many tribbles on the Enterprise? Didn't anyone notice how the Enterprise tribbles would. pause. in. their. noises. from. time. to. time?
I'm pretty sure that only Shatner would have 13-sided dice; they're an exotic particle that has to be made by retuning the deflector dish and rerouting the emissions to the Enterprise's replicator banks.
No, no. Techno-babble is more Next Generation (and on). TOS Kirk would be split into two Kirks in the transporter, one Kirk have his mind switched with a woman's mind so that he would then have a woman's body. The other Kirk would then proceed to fuck the now-female Kirk. Afterwards, when he realized to his horror that he just fucked himself, he would find the first Kirk with the woman's mind, beat the crap out of him, get the feminized Kirk's mind back into the correct body, and then (just in the nick of time) put his two selves into the transporter during a similar ion storm that caused the problem in the first place. Mr. Spock would then crush a twelve-sided die very precisely to make it a thirteen-side die while saying something profoundly logical. Bones would then make some quip about green-blooded inhumans, to which Kirk would laugh.
The federal Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is the appellate court that would hear the appeal. If the appellate court rules in favor of the students, then all of the trial courts in a limited geographic area (Maine, Mass, New Hampshire, Rhode Island) are bound. If the RIAA filed outside that area then a different court could come up with a different outcome.
While technically true, binding precedents in other Circuit Courts can be persuasive authority. If all the Circuit courts rule the same way, then a Supreme Court ruling is unneccesary. If several rule and there are major discrepancies, then the Supremes will more likely feel the need to rule in order to establish uniformity.
Taking lecture notes isn't what's claimed to be copyright infringement, only re-selling the notes for a profit. Fair use does not provide for commercial reproduction.
If the class is, say, a basic physics class, how could the professor possibly sue over students selling their notes? The professor is distilling knowledge of things like Gauss's law and the students are taking notes based on that. The professor does not own any sort of copyright to Gauss's law, so the students' notes are *their* understanding of what the professor explains to them about Gauss's law. In other words, the students' notes are *their* distillation of the knowledge presented to them through lecture, reading, et cetera, and are thus the students' copyrights.
I just don't see how someone's notes on someone else's explanation of a subject matter can be copyrightable. A particular work covering a subject matter would be, but then one could read that and a few other works on (e.g.) electromagnetism and produce your own work, and that too would be copyrightable. That's all the students are doing. They are making their own particular work based on what they have learned from other sources.
Also, "bootheel" is a bit too strong. Indonesians did not hate the Dutch as much as the lands conquered by Britain tended to hate the British. The Dutch, while still a colonial force, didn't treat the Indonesians dismissively and many Dutch actually rather liked Indonesia and took on a lot of Indonesian customs. Hell, after the first Dutch ship landed in Bali, half the crew refused to leave. Now, of course, they have to deal with those damned Australians:-p
If Gore was receiving the same intelligence reports that Bush had recived about there being WMDs in Iraq, and 9/11 put together we would still be in Iraq.
Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld cherry picked what they wanted to accept and pressured FBI and CIA agents to exaggerate or even just make shit up. You know, before the second Iraq War *I* fucking knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs and I never get any of these reports. If people in the US would have simply paid attention to what we had been doing in Iraq for the 12 years before the second Iraq War, no one would have believed that crap. There is no way you can bomb a country for 12 years, cripple its military, and make it ridiculously difficult to obtain equipment and expect a viable WMD program to be in the works. And, lo and behold, when we went into Iraq the only WMDs we found were useless old stuff that *we* sold them to fight the Iranians back in the Iran-Iraq War.
But, I shouldn't be too surprised. Most Americans don't even know where the fuck Iraq is, so how can you expect them to keep up with what is going on?
What is inappropriately called intellectual "property" is not property. You invent something or you write and, in exchange for releasing it to the public, the government gives you the legal rights to that invention or work for a limited amount of time. It is about control, not ownership. Furthermore, if you own a piece of land, it is distinct from every other piece of land. No one can also simultaneously occupy it. Only you can. The reason for control is that a book or an invention can be readily copied. This could even be done in older times, but the amount of overhead made it likely that people would find out about it more easily.
Furthermore, every idea whether a book or invention is built off of the work of others. Should the inventor of a better type of jet propulsion still have to pay royalties to the heirs of the Wright Brothers? Should Shakespeare have had to pay royalties for about everything he wrote, since his plays were based either on history or were a variation on an old theme?
Copyrights create an incentive to produce works because the artist will get protection from the government long enough for him to try to make money off of it. The "limited" part of that is what society gets in exchange. It is the "consideration" if you want to put it in contractual terms.
This is wholly different from the idea of property. When you buy something or make something, there is no ownership requirement that says you have to keep working on it. Such would be ludicrous. You are conflating two issues that have nothing to do with each other because MAFIAA shill keep referring to copyrights as "property". A better analogy for copyrights and patents would be a contract. The government grants you control of your work and the right to sue in exchange for you publicly disclosing that work and letting it out into the public after the time expires. Or, perhaps we could go back to where there is no copyright. Then, you can get money to perform in public, or recite the next part of your story in public. Or, do like Shakespeare and try to never have your works published and control who comes into the Globe so people will have to pay to come to your theater to see the play.
Finally, the biggest reason why copyrights and patents should not be granted in perpetuity is because, by doing so, you are ultimately going to wind up keeping people from expressing any idea or developing anything at all inventive without paying money to someone. You wouldn't be able to write a letter to anyone, or say anything publicly, or mess around with circuit equipment to develop a new gadget without paying royalties to a bunch of people.
Why no April Fools Today.
on
ISO Approves OOXML
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
There is no April Fools today since the real news is comical enough (though in a tragically funny sort of way).
Thanks for the link. I was hesitant to write that it was already out there since I haven't looked into the practical side of the technology for a while. I know about the research, but since I practically live in a cave, I didn't know if distance OCR of license plates was practical yet.
Of course, cars also come with this thing called a "license plate", which can also be tracked remotely and wirelessly.
I don't know about "wirelessly" unless you are talking about people using their eyeballs. Eyesight detection isn't at all efficient and certainly not automated. However, there are non-wireless camera systems that can be used to more automatedly detect license plate numbers. Although, from my understanding, that hasn't really been perfected yet. Using RFID combined with detectors at every street corner will allow for constant surveillance of every car all the time.
I think they are also using meta-mods to keep other people from having mod points. All you have to do is meta-mod "unfair" any mod up of something that happens to have a liberal viewpoint and meta-mod "unfair" any mod down of something that happens to have a conservative viewpoint. I don't get any mod points anymore, even though I used to get them all the time. And now, I and others get modded into oblivion whenever we say anything even slightly disparaging of Dear Leader or one of his minions.
Perhaps the military has hired them to spew propaganda on slashdot:-p
Slashdot Mirror
I just don't see how someone's notes on someone else's explanation of a subject matter can be copyrightable. A particular work covering a subject matter would be, but then one could read that and a few other works on (e.g.) electromagnetism and produce your own work, and that too would be copyrightable. That's all the students are doing. They are making their own particular work based on what they have learned from other sources.
How about 'bluegavelofdeath' ?
But, I shouldn't be too surprised. Most Americans don't even know where the fuck Iraq is, so how can you expect them to keep up with what is going on?
Furthermore, every idea whether a book or invention is built off of the work of others. Should the inventor of a better type of jet propulsion still have to pay royalties to the heirs of the Wright Brothers? Should Shakespeare have had to pay royalties for about everything he wrote, since his plays were based either on history or were a variation on an old theme?
Copyrights create an incentive to produce works because the artist will get protection from the government long enough for him to try to make money off of it. The "limited" part of that is what society gets in exchange. It is the "consideration" if you want to put it in contractual terms.
This is wholly different from the idea of property. When you buy something or make something, there is no ownership requirement that says you have to keep working on it. Such would be ludicrous. You are conflating two issues that have nothing to do with each other because MAFIAA shill keep referring to copyrights as "property". A better analogy for copyrights and patents would be a contract. The government grants you control of your work and the right to sue in exchange for you publicly disclosing that work and letting it out into the public after the time expires. Or, perhaps we could go back to where there is no copyright. Then, you can get money to perform in public, or recite the next part of your story in public. Or, do like Shakespeare and try to never have your works published and control who comes into the Globe so people will have to pay to come to your theater to see the play.
Finally, the biggest reason why copyrights and patents should not be granted in perpetuity is because, by doing so, you are ultimately going to wind up keeping people from expressing any idea or developing anything at all inventive without paying money to someone. You wouldn't be able to write a letter to anyone, or say anything publicly, or mess around with circuit equipment to develop a new gadget without paying royalties to a bunch of people.
There is no April Fools today since the real news is comical enough (though in a tragically funny sort of way).
Thanks for the link. I was hesitant to write that it was already out there since I haven't looked into the practical side of the technology for a while. I know about the research, but since I practically live in a cave, I didn't know if distance OCR of license plates was practical yet.
Perhaps the military has hired them to spew propaganda on slashdot